Leicestershire County Council (18 017 396)

Category : Transport and highways > Other

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 03 Jun 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation into this complaint, about a highways matter relating to a planning application. This is because there is no injustice to the complainant which the Ombudsman could remedy.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, to whom I will refer as Mr P, complains the Council, in its role as local highways authority, has made an error while determining its consultee response to a planning application. He says the resultant planning permission would involve encroachment on his land. He also believes the applicant will build against planning permission, which would create a highways safety issue.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’.
  2. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
  3. We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I reviewed Mr P’s correspondence with the Council and information he submitted to the Ombudsman.
  2. I also sent a draft copy of this decision to each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Mr P lives in a rural area. He accesses his property by a long driveway leading from a high-speed A road. He shares the driveway with a neighbouring landowner.
  2. The neighbouring landowner has previously applied for permission to create a new, separate driveway. The local planning authority (LPA) refused the application, after receiving advice from the Council that it would create a highways safety risk.
  3. In 2018, the neighbour submitted a new application for a similar development. The Council gave its support to this application, which was subsequently approved by the LPA.
  4. Mr P complains the Council marked out the land wrongly when it was taking measurements for the proposal, and the permission as given would have to encroach on his land.

Back to top

Analysis

  1. If the applicant attempts to build the driveway in accordance with the planning permission, thereby encroaching on Mr P’s land, he will be able to take legal action to resolve the matter. The Ombudsman has no power to rule on questions of land ownership and so we could not investigate this matter.
  2. Alternatively, if the applicant does not attempt to proceed with the planning permission, because of the legal ramifications, there could be no injustice to Mr P and so nothing for the Ombudsman to resolve.
  3. Mr P believes the applicant will proceed to build his driveway and not follow the planning permission he has been given. He considers the applicant will then apply for retrospective permission for the build.
  4. The LPA would have the power to grant permission in retrospect, but this is speculative and not a matter the Ombudsman could investigate now. In any case, a complaint about planning permission itself – the current one or any potential future permission – would have to be made to the LPA. Mr P’s complaint is about the County Council in its role as a consultee on the existing application, and so this is not a matter I could look at here anyway.
  5. I appreciate, and do not dismiss, Mr P’s concerns about highway safety. However, this is a matter which would affect anyone driving through the area, not just him personally, and so the restriction I describe at paragraph 4 applies here.

Final decision

  1. I have discontinued my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings